JUDGMENT :

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

1. A.V. Dicey in his monumental work “The Law of the Constitution” Ist Edition, Macmillan and co., while explaining the rule of law, stated as under:-

“With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the Courts and made in their personal capacity liable to punishment or to the payment of damages for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority.”

India, being an ardent supporter of the rule of law, hosted an event of the International Commission of Jurists comprising 185 judges, practicing lawyers and teachers of the law from 53 countries across the world (Declaration of Delhi), on January 5-10, 1959 and Committee on “The Executive and The Rule of Law”, inter alia, came to the following conclusions:-

“Clause VI:

A citizen who suffers injury as a result of illegal acts of the Executive should have an adequate remedy either in the form of a proceeding against the State or against the individual wrongdoer, with the assurance of satisfaction of the judgment in the latter case, or both” along with other connected cases

Clause VII:

Irrespective of the availability of judicial review to correct illegal action by the Executive after it has occurred, it is generally desirable to institute appropriate antecedent procedures of hearing, enquiry or consultation through which parties whose rights or interests will be affected may have an adequate opportunity to make representations so as to minimize the likelihood of unlawful or unreasonable executive action.”

Clause VIII:

It will further the Rule of Law if the Executive is required to formulate its reasons when reaching its decisions of a judicial or administrative character and affecting the rights of individuals and at the request of a party concerned to communicate them to him.”

The decisions of above declaration were duly affirmed in next session of the International Body, held at Lagos from January (3-7), 1961.

Our country is a parliamentary democracy; Central Government as well as State Government are vested with powers limited under the Constitution and in case such a limit is crossed, the remedy of judicial review can be invoked before the Constitutional Courts to preserve the rule of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing on the rule of law observed in the following manner:-

“The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, having flown from "We, the people of India, i.e., Bharat, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. The sovereign power is distributed among the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary with checks and balances but not in water tight rigid would. In our democracy governed by the rule of law, the Judiciary has expressly been entrusted with the power of judicial review as sentinal in qui vive. Basically judicial review of administrative actions as also of legislation is exercised against the action of the along with other connected cases State. Since the State or public authorities act in exercise of their executive or legislative power, they are amenable to the judicial review. The State, therefore, is subject to etat de droit, i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the S